Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Tower\s+Ratings\s+\-\s+Stupid\s+Question\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:27:24 -0500
Hi, Bill -- As far as tower/antenna insurance claims, it is almost always covered either as a 'structure' or 'personal property'. I've never seen an insurance company reject a tower/antenna claim, ev
/archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00040.html (10,075 bytes)

2. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: dave@egh.com (David Clemons)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:29:20 -0500 (EST)
Hi, For what it's worth, here's what I heard from my homeowner's insurance company after a tree broke and took down my 75 foot tower in 1986: 1. It destroyed your utility trailer too? Take that claim
/archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00041.html (9,187 bytes)

3. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: w5fl@flash.net (Wendell - W5FL)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:13:37 -0600
Insurance Companies solved this problem easily in Texas. Antennas and = towers are not covered period. You have to have a separate rider to = cover them if they will write it at all. My TV antenna wa
/archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00044.html (7,476 bytes)

4. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: dgf@netcom.com (David Feldman)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:25:50 -0800
In my case, in Denver (where the only real hazard is the rare tornado), I added antenna coverage (two towers, etc.) for about $9/year. The agent added it under some category related to home TV dishe
/archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00047.html (7,961 bytes)

5. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 96 15:07:47 -0500
This raises an interesting question. If the lowest wind in the TIA standards is 70 mph, why do tower manufacturers specify tower capacity in terms of 50 mph wind? Since wind pressure increases with
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00339.html (8,530 bytes)

6. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: ke1fo@contesting.com (Alfred J. Frugoli)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:31:56 +0000
And US Tower sent me away to a PE to find out what the rating would be at increased wind speed, they do not even have those numbers. I would think so. As before, the answer to this question according
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00344.html (8,990 bytes)

7. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: jmellis@ihug.co.nz (Martin Ellis)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:01:11 +1300
I am also trying to study the tower literature for an installation next year. I have had a comment that at least one manufacturer (is it Tri-ex?) states that their crank-up sections are specially st
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00345.html (8,812 bytes)

8. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:27:01 -0500
Dear Confused -- In the pre-TIA/EIA-222, UBC, et al. days, there wasn't much in the way of standardization for structures and wind forces. Since then, many standards, including the aforementioned one
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00346.html (10,590 bytes)

9. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: jholly@hposl02.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:42:29 -0800
Tri-Ex rates thiers at 70mph and provides calculations for that speed. For "comparision purposes only" they provide a chart for 50mph. 73, Jim, WA6SDM jholly@cup.hp.com -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.cont
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00347.html (8,316 bytes)

10. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:42:45 -0500
The forces on a crankup are obviously at their maximum when the tower is fully extended. Having the overlap areas beefed up is a good thing to do since most hams load their towers to the max and leav
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00348.html (9,460 bytes)

11. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: robrk@fyi.net (Bob Morris K2RK)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:09:53 -0800
I hear people putting guy wires on self-support or crank-ups, thinking they are improving wind load etc... Is this not a -bad thing-? -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submis
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00356.html (10,308 bytes)

12. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:53:38 -0500
The Prime Directive when it comes to tower or antenna construction is to "do what the manufacturer says". If a tower was designed to be erected with no guy wires, then you shouldn't add any. That sai
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00358.html (9,767 bytes)

13. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: cookar2@btlip16.bt.co.uk (Cook, Andy, COOKAR2)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 13:57:00 UCT
Bob Morris K2RK wrote :- I guess this all depends. Here in the UK crank-up / tiltover towers are the norm. Don't have the exact figures at my finger tips, but I recall that a 24m Strumech Heavy Duty
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00363.html (9,065 bytes)

14. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 17:22:53 -0500
The density of the air hasn't really changed, and the wind speed is still the wind speed. Yea, like *I*'m in a better position to perform these calculations, even if I were a PE (which I'm not). How
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00378.html (11,067 bytes)

15. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:36:09 -0500
That's true but that's why they still ADVERTISE 50 MPH wind load figures in a 70 MPH world. manufacturer That means that if you want the figures, YOU have to pay someone to do it. Down-rating means l
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00391.html (12,118 bytes)

16. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: ke1fo@contesting.com (Alfred J. Frugoli)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:04:04 +0000
Just had a local amateur here have his "guyed self suporting" tower com down. The recent heavy wet snow we had brought down a large (12+" diameter) branch that landed on one of his guy wires. The to
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00396.html (9,630 bytes)

17. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: g3vbl@netcomuk.co.uk (Chris Pedder)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:55:48 GMT
Comments about crank-up towers are always of interest because it is probably fair to say that here in England they are the type of tower most used. There are many reasons for this, not least of which
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00397.html (12,100 bytes)

18. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: cdent@tenet.edu (Cathy Elizabeth D'Entremont)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:11:55 -0600 (CST)
Hi Ya'll: <deleted for bandwidth> Ann, W5BKK's (sk) XYL (/widow), has Ken's motorized SN for sale at a reasonable price in gud cdx. I should imagine that shipping to UK would be prohibitive; Barbados
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00398.html (9,158 bytes)

19. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: crb@nanoteq.co.za (Chris R. Burger)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:46:28 +200
It's been said before in this thread, but a lot of the postings seem to ignore the implications. It's a fact of life that a guy line can only pull. If you ignore its stiffness (a reasonable assumpti
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00399.html (9,663 bytes)

20. Tower Ratings - Stupid Question (score: 1)
Author: KenDulK8ZR@aol.com (KenDulK8ZR@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:39:59 -0500
Tower ratings by Tri-Ex are for 70 mph. I have owned and will own another Tri-Ex tower. I have spoken to them on the landline over the years and have received the same response: the tower rating goes
/archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00401.html (8,390 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu